Puslapio vaizdai

off its Asiatic barbarism. In what light does Protestantism appear to it? The author of the above work says, I. 336: “A great number of Protestant clergymen have taken to abstract philosophy, because they no longer believed in Jesus.Page 418: “It is the customary tactics of the philosophers of the Protestant school, to cover themselves with the cloak of Christianity; this is based on a profound contempt for the people, who must be left in their ignorance. Thus the Protestant clergymen preach in the pulpit a truth which they ridicule in the study." Page 430: Schleiermacher did not even believe in the existence of Jesus."*

Of the Roman Catholic Church he says: Salvation is no longer to be expected from the official Church of Rome; she has no apostolic clergy, no evangelical speech, no sympathy for misfortune, no power to produce new prayers, no selfdenial, no force to oppose Protestantism, no inspiration from inward sight, no fellowship of the spirit, no creative idea and no living word; her priests are only the “ commis-voyageurs du Catholicisme."

The views of the Panslavists, as to the part they are to play in history, and how they consider themselves appointed to Conduct the destinies of the nations, chosen of God and girt for the task of rescuing the world from destruction, infidelity and anarchy, all this may be best seen from the following account in the Gazette Politique of St. Petersburg, of a year back:

“ The Emperor, before his departure for the campaign against Hungary, summoned the Russian and Polish Bishops to St. Petersburg. From Poland the Bishops Holowinski, Borowski, and Zylinski were sent for. The first of these gave thanks in the name of the whole for the condescension shown to them, and said that by means of the faith, of conscience, love and persuasion, they would strive to lead the people in the way of quiet and obedience, and resist the spirit of anarchy, and that they thought, in this way, to further the wishes of the Emperor. The Emperor shook him by the hand, and said, amongst other things, ' I will have no new faith. They have invented a new Catholic faith abroad, but I will not have it introduced into my Empire, for these new lights are the greatest of rebels. Without the faith nothing can stand. We see in the West what becomes of men when they have no belief; what absurdities they are perpetrating there! I foresaw it all when I returned from Rome. Religion has entirely disappeared from the West ; this is shown by the manner in which they are treating the Pope. It is only in Russia that the true faith prevails, and I hope (here the Emperor crossed himself ) that the holy faith will sustain itself. I said to the late Pope, Gregory XVI., what no one had ever said to him before. The present Pope is an honest man and had good intentions, but he gave himself up too much at first to the spirit of the time. The King of Naples is a good Catholic; they slandered him to the Pope, but now he has had to take refuge with him after all.'”

* A Protestant theologian of Germany, Dr. Kalb, of Wechselburg, in Sax. ony, thus replies: (Allgemeine Zeitung für Christenthum und Kirche. No. 32, 1846.) “Who that knows anything of history and philosophy can overlook the enlightening, refreshing, invigorating, enlivening, edifying spirit of Kant's doctrine of the consciousness of the moral law as the divine order of the world, Fichte's lofty idealism, Schelling's insight into the divine unity of all contradictions in nature ; communicated from them to the Church and to Science, and especially to German theology. So that all humanity has to thank the leaders of German philosophy for a good part of the progress we have made towards reconciling Religion and Science, Church and State."

Bishop Holowinski replied: “ Circumstances prevailed upon the Holy Father; he could not resist the spirit of the time.” “ That is possible,” answered the Emperor, “but all these troubles come from a want of faith; I am no fanatic, but my faith is firm. In the West there are only two alternatives, either fanaticism or complete atheism. (Here he turned to the Polish Bishops.) You are the neighbors of these misguided people ; your example ought to be a lesson to them. Should you meet with any difficulties, apply to me. whole force shall be directed (here he raised his clenched fist) to the repression of this torrent of unbelief and disorder, which is spreading more and more, and which even seeks to force its way into my territories. The spirit of revolution gains ground through atheism ; in the West there is no faith ; and I swear that worse will come of it to them.” Here the Emperor turned to the Metropolitan, kissed his hand and said : “ Hitherto we have ever been on good terms with each other; I hope it will so continue.” In these words of the Emperor we have a full expression of Panslavistic sentiments : " In Russia alone prevails the true faith! In the West there is no faith.” What an apostolic mission is bestowed upon Russia ! In the name of the faith they are to go forth against anarchy and unbelief, and conquer the world. The Sclavonians are the people chosen of God in modern times. What was shown to the Jews and Romans only from afar, is granted to them. To them therefore apply the words of the 149th Psalm : “ The Lord taketh pleasure in His people ; He will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory; let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be


[ocr errors]

in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand. To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishment upon the people. To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron. To execute upon them the judgment written : this honor have all His saints.'

With this proud consciousness, the lust of dominion is justified by their own orthodoxy of belief and the heresy of their enemies, and its gratification favored by the disunion of their opponents and their struggle for absolute power for themselves. The more western countries of Europe have but one way of escape from Russian supremacy ; namely, to form themselves into a thorough and consistent opposition to her principles, by accepting free democratic sentiments, and developing them in all directions in the State, thereby embracing with renewed enthusiasm a practical Christianity, with all its deep, inward, joyful peace and freedom. Thus would they be outwardly and inwardly armed, and the threatening storm of Panslavism, ideal and practical, would melt before them into mist. Would that all men of Western Europe might accept, with the joyful certainty of victory, the truth held up to us by the celebrated Swiss theologian, Merle d'Aubigne, (“Luther and Calvin, or the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches, their difference and their essential unity,”) “Democracy is the future towards which all nations are advancing.”. Would that all the governments of Western Europe, and especially of Germany, would pay attention to the words of St. René Taillandier, (Rev. des deux Mondes: Hist. du parlement de Frankfort, Paris, 1849, IV. 148;) “ The triumph of the feudal and pietistic party would be the triumph of Russia, and after having perforce made use of this dangerous ally, Vienna and Berlin should be thinking of fortifying themselves against her. It would be wise for these governments, after the disorders of the two last years, to reject the counsels of a blind reaction, and themselves raise up the constitutional party. In the present condition of Germany, this would be not merely an act of generosity, it would be the most sagacious policy. The revolutionists have compromised the ancient unity of Germany, and put her liberties in peril; let the governments repair all these disasters; let them lay the foundations of a new union ; let them secure to modern society the legitimate guarantees demanded by the progress

The revolutionists have brought Russia into Germany; let the governments, by taking up the liberal side, protect Germany against Russian influence !"

of reason.


Amongst the various topics that grow out of the postal system of this country, is one which touches the basis of the establishment. It is now, for the first time, denied that that system has had, or has any legal existence under the Constitution as a monopoly. A denial from a high source, and calmly and clearly made, is entitled to consideration. All constitutional questions are grave and momentous ones; but the extent of operation and the influence of the post-office department are such ; its economy, revenue and success, and the necessities of the people depend on such influences, that this becomes one of the most important ones which can be presented to the people.

The source from which, if at all, Congress derives the power to claim a monopoly in the post-office department, is the clause in the Constitution, authorizing that body “ to establish postoffices and post-roads,” Art. 1, 58, and“ to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested,” &c.

Under this sanction, Congress has, during the whole course of the government, passed laws more or less exclusive in character. It has been very justly stated as “ the result of an analysis of the post-office legislation of the country, that under the power to establish post-offices and post-roads, the general government has claimed the right to raise a revenue by postage on letters, and the exclusive right to convey mailable matter, not only throughout the country, but also between our own and other countries."

The question is whether the Constitution confers any such exclusive right. Let the right of mail carriage throughout this country be first considered.

The most obvious remark, that the power is not granted in exclusive terms and is not prohibited either to States or individuals, will be found to have little force. Besides begging the question, it involves a doctrine of construction that has never been held sound, and, what is of more importance, it precludes all considerations relating to the subject matter and the objects of the grant.

A constitutional frame of government cannot be thus construed. It is not, in all or most instances, to be settled by mere rules of grammar or scientific definition of terms, which, like analogies and juxtaposition, may aid in construction, but rather by the nature, objects and origin of the grant. There is danger in adhering to the strict letter.

There is another danger of being misled by the classification of what was not written with a view to classification, though that may be a help to a certain extent and for certain ends. Thus, because certain powers, granted to Congress, are prohibited to the States, such as the regulation of commerce, the treaty making power, and the right to coin money, the rule, expressio unius exclusio alterius, is not to be applied and the inference drawn that all not prohibited are reserved to the States. Nor can it be held that this power is not exclusive because it is not in terms granted to Congress exclusively, as is the right of legislation over“ forts, arsenals, the District, &c.

Nor can one justly go a step further, and hold that this power is exclusive, because the exercise of a like power would be incompatible in its very nature, as is the right of naturalization; or claim the converse, that, so far as a concurrent exercise of the power did not prevent or interfere with the exercise of that granted, it would be lawful.

There are subjects, over which the power granted to Congress must, from the nature of those subjects, be exclusive. The surrender of fugitives from labor is a matter of international concern. The right of granting patents and copy-rights, had the word “exclusive” not been used, would, from the nature of the things, have been exclusive. Over other subjects, Congress has jurisdiction which is exclusive to a certain point; yet the States may also legislate upon them. Instances are seen in license and quarantine laws. On others still there is concurrent legislation and direct or incidental interference.

Now the power in question is not granted exclusively, nor granted to Congress and prohibited to States or persons, in terms; it is not indivisible by nature ; it is not of exclusive international concern, so that for that cause it must be under the control of a power above the States to keep them from conflict; it is not of such a public national character that it must be vested in the general government, as alone fit to negotiate with foreign powers; it must obviously depend on considerations different from those that govern these various classes of cases, though they may all serve to illustrate it.

If this be correct, many of the objections to the exclusive grant of the power are disposed of

. We must turn, then, from that construction, which is based on punctuation, collocation, and rules of an arbitrary nature, to that construction which

« AnkstesnisTęsti »